View Full Version : One for the Bible Thumpers: Five Mistakes in Your Bible Translation
boutons_deux
12-09-2011, 11:44 AM
In the original Hebrew, the 10th Commandment prohibits taking, not coveting. The biblical Jubilee year is named for an animal's horn and has nothing to do with jubilation. The pregnant woman in Isaiah 7:14 is never called a virgin. Psalm 23 opens with an image of God's might and power, not shepherding. And the romantic Song of Solomon offers a surprisingly modern message.
But most people who read the Bible don't know these things, because extensive translation gaffs conceal the Bible's original meaning.
The mistakes stem from five flawed translation techniques: etymology, internal structure, cognates, old mistranslations, and misunderstood metaphor. (Read more: "Five Ways Your Bible Translation Distorts the Original Meaning of the Text.")
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dr-joel-hoffman/five-mistakes-bible-translation_b_1129620.html?view=print&comm_ref=false
=========
How could God inspire so many egregious mistakes? :lol
Blake
12-09-2011, 11:54 AM
....In these and many other instances, improved translation techniques bring us closer to the original intent of the Bible. And like a newly restored work of art, the Bible's original beauty shines the brighter for it.....
6. When translated properly, the "Red Sea" is more likely the "Reed Sea".......which would make a lot more logistical sense for a mass exodus.
......which also takes the shine off of the miracle of the parting of the Red Sea....
Stringer_Bell
12-09-2011, 12:02 PM
I heard that "Thou Shall Not Kill" was actually "Thou Shall Not Commit Genocide."
And Song of Solomon is sexy as hell. God's love for his people is like soaping down a delicious pair of breasts.
cantthinkofanything
12-09-2011, 12:13 PM
Boutons, what about chicken wings? Does it address that at all?
boutons_deux
12-09-2011, 12:31 PM
meatless chicken wings suck, you can have mine.
cantthinkofanything
12-09-2011, 12:32 PM
meatless chicken wings suck, you can have mine.
Boutons finally admitting he's meatless.
Boutons, what about chicken wings? Does it address that at all?
:wakeup
Wild Cobra
12-09-2011, 03:51 PM
I heard that "Thou Shall Not Kill" was actually "Thou Shall Not Commit Genocide."
And Song of Solomon is sexy as hell. God's love for his people is like soaping down a delicious pair of breasts.
It's murder. Not kill.
boutons_deux
12-09-2011, 04:24 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LGrlWOhtj3g
Stringer_Bell
12-09-2011, 06:11 PM
It's murder. Not kill.
No, that's not what I heard. I heard it was kill...but they actually meant genocide. I don't read the bible, I just go off of what other people tell me.
Wild Cobra
12-09-2011, 06:15 PM
No, that's not what I heard. I heard it was kill...but they actually meant genocide. I don't read the bible, I just go off of what other people tell me.
I have some hardback reference material. It is murder.
JoeChalupa
12-09-2011, 06:34 PM
The Bible is open to many interpretations. Yes, it is.
Blake
12-09-2011, 08:16 PM
The Bible is open to many interpretations. Yes, it is.
God is a lousy communicator.
And many biblical and hebrew scholars translate the word "adam" as mankind, not 'man' or the man named Adam. Again, the translation is not a problem unless you are committed to a literal interpretation of the bible with only modern word translations.
The number and variances of language translation from the original hebrew, aramaic and greek are so enormous that academics spend their lives arguing about them. It ain't gonna get settled in a Spurstalk forum, imho.
mouse
12-10-2011, 02:25 PM
I wonder how many Mistakes are in Your Science books?
go to the 11:18 / 43:24 Mark
http://www.wabcradio.com/FlashPlayer/default.asp?SPID=37817&ID=2350693
I wonder how many Mistakes are in Your Science books?
go to the 11:18 / 43:24 Mark
http://www.wabcradio.com/FlashPlayer/default.asp?SPID=37817&ID=2350693
^^^^I don't know to whom the "Your" refers, but my science books are full of errors and that is no problem for me or the scientists who wrote them, since science, by its definition, is only considered 'factual' (never 'truth') as long as the most recent testing of a given hypothesis is able to be shown to be consistent with observable data.
Please don't mistake me for someone who challenges faith. I certainly do not.
I do, however, challenge the insistence on a literal translation of writings that are several thousands of years old and were originally written in languages far different than modern-day English as being 'truth'.
Your faith may lead you to 'believe' that the literal words of the English bible are the divinely inspired word of God. If so...go for it, fella.
My own faith is a bit more 'message' based, rather than literal.
To each his own.
Actually, I've never had a problem reconciling faith with evolution. I believe in God and I believe in evolution. I think we have an imperfect understanding of both.
No prob. for me.
mouse
12-10-2011, 03:12 PM
^^^^I don't know to whom the "Your" refers, but my science books are full of errors and that is no problem for me or the scientists who wrote them,
So your ok with young students being taught lies as facts?
since science, by its definition, is only considered 'factual' (never 'truth')
Then its more of a religion? And why does Science say the earth is 4 billion years old if its a lie?
as long as the most recent testing of a given hypothesis is able to be shown to be consistent with observable data.
What data do you consider useful?
Please don't mistake me for someone who challenges faith. I certainly do not.
unless your a narrow minded Catholic in denial like
Joe Chalupa your ok.
I do, however, challenge the insistence on a literal translation of writings that are several thousands of years old and were originally written in languages far different than modern-day English as being 'truth'.
true
Your faith may lead you to 'believe' that the literal words of the English bible are the divinely inspired word of God. If so...go for it, fella.
The way many of these wannabee professors like Agloco preach Science to us on a daily basis they are no different than a preacher in church.
My own faith is a bit more 'message' based, rather than literal.
To each his own.
good to hear, I to have a message for all ignorant people that post in here.
:toast
mouse
12-10-2011, 03:42 PM
Actually, I've never had a problem reconciling faith with evolution. I believe in God and I believe in evolution. I think we have an imperfect understanding of both.
No prob. for me.
That's like saying I am Jewish and I support Hitler.
Blake
12-10-2011, 06:33 PM
I wonder how many Mistakes are in Your Science books?
go to the 11:18 / 43:24 Mark
http://www.wabcradio.com/FlashPlayer/default.asp?SPID=37817&ID=2350693
Man isn't perfect, so there should be no surprise at errors in text books.
Blake
12-10-2011, 06:39 PM
That's like saying I am Jewish and I support Hitler.
That's nothing like saying that.
That's like saying I am Jewish and I support Hitler.
Not really at all. My faith is not threatened by my education in and appreciation of the scientific method of learning about our natural world. I believe that an all-powerful life-force (God, if you will) would be (or is) capable of designing a method of species and natural development that we are, as yet, unable to decipher. Doesn't mean it won't ever be deciphered, but is beyond our current ability to understand.
For example, earlier civilizations of humans believed that super-human beings created the seasons and made the winters give way to spring only after a sacrifice of some sort. Now we understand that spring will follow winter eventually regardless of whether or not we sacrifice some one or some thing to the god of spring. Does that mean that science has proven that a Supreme Being is not ultimately responsible for having designed a system of natural law wherein spring follows winter? Not at all.
Science has taught us that we needn't rely on sacrifices to a supreme being to bring about the end of winter, but it hasn't shown there is no God...
We don't understand all there is to understand about science.
We don't understand all there is to understand about God.
Belief in God does not blind me to what science can offer, and reliance on the scientific method for discovering as much as we can about the natural world does not lessen my faith in God.
Why must we make God in our image?
The god (or Supreme Being) that I believe in is not limited to what I can imagine...
It is possible, in my mind, that as humans we will learn more about the universe that was created by a Supreme Being as we perfect our knowledge.
That is belief.
It is also possible to prove the law of gravity, over and over again, with repeated experiments. That is scientific discovery.
I don't see them as incompatible.
So, for me, it is possible that a Divine Being put into place a method of development of creatures on a given planet that we only understand imperfectly now as evolutionary.
Since evolution is a scientific theory, I can test it against the observable world and grow in my understanding of it. If, as often happens, the scientific discovery modifies
the theory of evolution, I can change it, because the scientific method allows for that modification.
My faith in a Supreme Being, however, is unchangeable and thus, not subject to testing or verification or modification. It simply is. That is faith.
At least to me, it is.
mouse
12-10-2011, 07:58 PM
Man isn't perfect, so there should be no surprise at errors in text books.
So if Science is constantly revising all the time why not revise the Science books?
mouse
12-10-2011, 08:03 PM
Not really at all. My faith is not threatened by my education in and appreciation of the scientific method of learning about our natural world. I believe that an all-powerful life-force (God, if you will) would be (or is) capable of designing a method of species and natural development that we are, as yet, unable to decipher. Doesn't mean it won't ever be deciphered, but is beyond our current ability to understand.
For example, earlier civilizations of humans believed that super-human beings created the seasons and made the winters give way to spring only after a sacrifice of some sort. Now we understand that spring will follow winter eventually regardless of whether or not we sacrifice some one or some thing to the god of spring. Does that mean that science has proven that a Supreme Being is not ultimately responsible for having designed a system of natural law wherein spring follows winter? Not at all.
Science has taught us that we needn't rely on sacrifices to a supreme being to bring about the end of winter, but it hasn't shown there is no God...
We don't understand all there is to understand about science.
We don't understand all there is to understand about God.
Belief in God does not blind me to what science can offer, and reliance on the scientific method for discovering as much as we can about the natural world does not lessen my faith in God.
Get off the Fence!
http://katiebrenneman.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/09/fence2.jpg
Get off the Fence!
http://katiebrenneman.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/09/fence2.jpg
One of the big differences between us is that I see no need for a fence.
But I respect your right to see one and pick a side of it.
Heat Miser
12-10-2011, 09:04 PM
One of the big differences between us is that I see no need for a fence.
But I respect your right to see one and pick a side of it.
http://cache1.bigcartel.com/product_images/36280542/Image1605.jpg
Blake
12-11-2011, 12:15 AM
So if Science is constantly revising all the time why not revise the Science books?
They do get revised.
Ah, so much for nuanced thinking, eh?
mouse
12-12-2011, 04:33 PM
They do get revised.
link
Blake
12-12-2011, 06:07 PM
link
http://lmgtfy.com/?q=revised+science+books
mouse
12-12-2011, 07:28 PM
1/2 those books are not school text books, also they all still have Dinosaurs at 25 million years ago earth 4 billion years old etc....
so like a I said link?
Blake
12-12-2011, 10:52 PM
1/2 those books are not school text books, also they all still have Dinosaurs at 25 million years ago earth 4 billion years old etc....
so like a I said link?
So we agree that the other half (at least) of those books are revised school science text books.
God made you stupid.
mouse
12-13-2011, 02:20 AM
God made you stupid.
You had to ruin the conversation ?
your no better than Grrr and Dead zero
silverblk mystix
12-13-2011, 05:56 AM
here's an interesting translation of the last supper...
yF9O-GphB3M
Blake
12-13-2011, 10:27 AM
You had to ruin the conversation ?
your no better than Grrr and Dead zero
Science books get revised. It's a fact easily confirmed by using google.
You ruined the conversation by being stupid.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions Inc. All rights reserved.